SSH Key Inventory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond that: key contents, private key material and authorized_keys contents are never read or returned. It does not cover pagination behavior, but the privacy guarantee is a meaningful addition.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the scope statement is front-loaded before the negative guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so field-level return detail is unnecessary, and the description correctly focuses on scope and privacy constraints. Only the undocumented 'limit' parameter leaves a small completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single 'limit' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap. An agent gets no hint about what limit controls or its bounds from prose. The name is fairly self-explanatory, which keeps this from the bottom of the scale.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List metadata') and resource ('files in the current user's SSH directory'), with the scope ('current user's') explicitly bounded. It is unambiguous what this tool returns and how it differs from system/certificate inventory siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the description's scope (listing SSH directory file metadata), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative. With no competing SSH-key sibling, the absence of routing is tolerable but still leaves guidance at an implied level.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.